All my questions on anarchism

[Black Sheep]

All my questions on a video on youtube i uploaded.
"Questions for anarchists"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akf9PjVW2MU

Q1:The rejection of the vanguard party and the proletarian state,and the proposition of a federation of workers communes.
a)Isn't that inefficient in a matter of organisation when facing and external burgeoisie threat, like an invasion?
b)How do you prevent internal counter-revolution and formatino of counter-revolutionary ideologies in the populace?
c)Doesn't a lack of state require class awareness and "vanguardism" by the vast majority of the workers,thus postponing the revolution several years ahead? *
d)Since there is no coercion,won't the burgeoisie freely propagandise their ideology?Suppression of that is a restriction to their freedom.
e)How can you form the material conditions on production to a socialist mode of production without a state and central planning? **
f)Federation-How will economy and production be managed (planned) to serve best the communes, since each commune will look after the direct interests of their own people,
how will the majority of the populace be benefited? ***

*---meaning that the majority of the workers would have to be pioneers in the struggle
**---emphasizing on state's ability to plan stuff
***----meaning that since communes are managed by its people,they would vote against something that would benefit another commune, if that burdened theirs.


Q2:Rejection of all hierarchy amongs the anarchists
a)No military hierarchy- how can quick decisions be made in case of an external assault? Surely you cannot apply direct democracy here.
b)All anarchist (or anarchistic) movements had leaders.You may argue that those leaders are not "archons" but they do give orders and plan the course of action in various fields.
c)How do you manage production without hierarchy AT ALL in the workplace?
d)In general how do you organise large group of people without a structure upon them?
e)Why do you reject democratic centralism?

Q3:Struggle
a)What the F**CK is the thing about cops and the anti-police madness?Why the clashes?Why the road fighting? How does this serve the cause?
b)Why do you reject the participation in the parliament,since it is a gr8 means of propaganda.
c)Why rejection of syndicalism? (except from anarchosyndicalists of course)
d)Why the sectarianism?(by lots of anarchist groups)
e)Why do you focus on trivial things such as freedom (fuckin ABSTRACT) and prisons?

Q5:Theory //// i know, it should have been Q4...
a)What are, in your perspective, the differences between anarchy and communism? (the end of the road)
b)In your perspective, is violence necessary for the revolution?

[F9]

if you could address your questions here it would be MUCH easier to try answering.now i cant really answer with not seeing the question,i cant go forward and backward to see question.copy please:)

Fuserg9:star:

[trivas7]

Nice guitar track. :thumbup1:

[Omi]

Question 1:
a)No. In the Spanish civil war voluntairy militias where raised who were very effective in fighting external fascist threats. Furthermore, going into the army is a choice, isn't it? Why can't you choose to be in the army if it is not state run, in the same way that factories don't have to be state run to be efficient.

b)In this same way counter revolutionairy forces can be fought. Ideologies, can't ever be fought effectively, so that part of the quenstion is rather silly. If ideologies can be driven out of society succesfully, the bourgois would have done it to communism in the long run.

c)I totally mis your point in this one...

d) Who ever told you there can be no coercion in anarchism? This question is based on nothing, I'm affraid.

e) I think you misinterpreted the definition of 'state' that anarchists believe in. Simply put, we see it as a tool of the ruling class to surpress and protect the big capital, with a monopoly on violence and control over it's citizens. You see it as a tool for workers to organize in, which anarchists don't reject. Self organization is the key here.

f) That depends on several things like material conditions, geografical conditions, infrastructure. You can't have the same style of organization for every commune. Flexibility is a must in a system of economic freedom such as communism.

Question 2:

a) Is hierarchy neccessary in making quick decisions? I think not. I even believe that in such a situation, making the right choise is crucial (ofcourse), so giving more people the chance of having a brilliant tactical idea and have it carried out, is beneficial. Hierarchy is handy for making quick decisions which can or cannot be the right one. Having more brains working together can do that stuff just as quick, only better.

b) Orders and planning, based on voluntairy assistment. Not based on false authority and rock hard hierarchy.

c) By managing? What is your point?

d) By organizing? Again, make a solid point, these are hollow questions. It has been proven over and over again that it is achievable, and not even hard to do. Get over it.

e) Because it is unneccessary and is easy target for counterrevolutionairy tendencys.

Question 3:

a)Because the police is a constant counter revolutionairy force in society, and one of the strongest at that. Especially in antifascist struggle, clashes with police are inevitable.

b) Because to even try and win votes in parliament, you have to be bourgois and defend bourgois interests. Come on, you read Marx I hope, parliament is nothing more than bourgois spreading bourgois lies and defending bourgois interests. Nothing productive ever emerges from parliament, at least not in anarchist struggle.

c) You said it yourself. You are questioning anarchists, so this also means anarcho syndicalists. But to answer the question, a lot of anarchists think that labour unions can't ever become a revolutionairy driving force because they incite negotiation with the enemy. A lot of anarchists do think that labour unions and/or syndicates can be usefull in fulfilling direct worker demands, and thus creating class awareness and sympathy for the cause.

d) Very diffrent from communist groups, yes!:rolleyes:

e) Have you ever been in prison, or have your freedom taken away from you in a forcefull way? Why would you seek to free humanity from the chains of capitalism, when you think freedom is trivial? If freedom is trivial to you, why would you even consider yourself revolutionairy any way?

Question 5:

a) Nothing. It's the road to freedom that matters.

b) Yes.


I hope I made myself a little bit clear and hope this helps you along.:) I'm a bit drunk right now, so I hope it is readable, and makes sense:lol:.

Omi

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Just curious, but why did you clump anarcho-individualists and anarcho-capitalists together? Individualists are socialists, too.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Just curious, but why did you clump anarcho-individualists and anarcho-capitalists together? Individualists are socialists, too.

eeeeeh.Tucker's fetish for contracts suggest otherwise.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A capitalist would state: interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder, eh?

His view on anarchism was spot on, if you ask me. There are things we would find intolerable, but if both parties are truly agreeing to it, then step aside. Even if capitalists did form some remotely functional 'anarcho-capitalist' protection agency, it would fail to provide public necessities, corruption would become rampant, the land monopoly would create horrible inequality. Seeing the socialist communities doing better, people would flock over. He also followed Proudhon's traditional "use" view on property.

Under anarchism if someone wants a king over their head they have a right to that king.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

A capitalist would state: interest is theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder, eh?

His view on anarchism was spot on, if you ask me. There are things we would find intolerable, but if both parties are truly agreeing to it, then step aside. Even if capitalists did form some remotely functional 'anarcho-capitalist' protection agency, it would fail to provide public necessities, corruption would become rampant, the land monopoly would create horrible inequality. Seeing the socialist communities doing better, people would flock over. He also followed Proudhon's traditional "use" view on property.

Under anarchism if someone wants a king over their head they have a right to that king.



He wasn't your typical capitalist. But he believed in natural law contracts, a free market, and iirc allowed for employment. My main issue is the market of course. Markets breed inequality and anti social behavior, since they are based on competition.

[Norseman]

Q1 (a): Well, this question assumes that the population of some territory has become anarchist. If, for example, the United States became anarchist, there would be at least 150 million anarchists, probably with more than one gun per person. All the English speaking countries would probably develop the same anarchist sentiment, if it becomes that prevalent in the US. This means that Canada would probably be anarchist too. So, the only land invasion could come from Mexico. However, Mexico has a tremendous poverty problem, and it has a history of anarchism, i.e. the Zapatistas, who are still present in Mexico today. If the United States and Canada both went anarchist, Mexico might become anarchist shortly afterwards. If it doesn't, it certainly has no military force which could deal with 150 million armed anarchists, even if those anarchists were almost completely disorganized. So, that leaves only naval invasions. Russia is about the only country that could pull off such an invasion. However, managing to occupy the United States long-term would probably be impossible, at least in the near-future. IEDs and snipers would basically force them to occupy a very small area with a large force, and leave most of the United States and Canada alone.

(b): There's no need. IMO, the only reason people support the existence of the state at all is because of state indoctrination and bourgeosie propaganda. If 50% of the US were anarchist, the rest would likely become anarchist very quickly.

(c): An anarchist revolution can't happen overnight. First, people's perception of government needs to change. That means an anarchist revolution will tend to be gradual. People will refuse to pay taxes, refuse orders made by the police, refuse military service and so on. Other anarchists will make sure they can do that. As an anarchist movement grows, the irrelevance of the government grows too. Anarchists would begin to handle welfare, community projects, and policing, and before long people would recognize that the government isn't giving them anything that anarchists aren't already giving them. Anarchists would start taking over their workplaces and refusing to pay rent. The government and the bourgeoisie would thus lose all of its funding, all of its influence, and all of its power. Together, they would be made completely irrelevant to the life of the majority of people. That might take time, sure, but the important thing is that it happens, and succeeds.

(d): The bourgeosie can do what they want, and they do. A successful anarchist movement will turn people towards democratically controlled media, and will ultimately give control of the mass media to a direct democracy. For the bourgeosie to retain any influence, it needs to be persuasive. That's difficult, because democratically controlled news, like on digg and reddit, is always much farther left than privately-owned or state-controlled news. The majority of the population seems to know that privately-owned news sources are biased.

(e): Easy. People kick out their bosses out and create directly democratic workplaces. If the police don't like it, anarchists can and will come from all over to defend it.

(f): Probably through mutual funds, to provide welfare. People can, of course, opt out if they have a better idea.

2 (a): Direct action. When local people hear that they're getting invaded, they take action. When people near the invaded communities find out, they send men, guns and bombs to the invaded area, so on and so forth. As people find out about it, it's their responsibility to alert others and take action.

(b): Maybe. But anarchist leaders have no power to enact unpopular decisions. Fundamentally, an anarchist community remains directly democratic. I certainly don't think leaders are necessary, but they're also not necessarily harmful if they are leaders by virtue of being persuasive and honest. Noam Chomsky could be considered a leader of anarchism in the US today. He has a lot of influence, but he can't force anyone to do anything.

(c): Direct democracy.

(d): The correct question is "How do anarchists organize themselves?" And, again, direct democracy works pretty well, as long as people can opt into and out of it. We can have a long discussion about the best way to implement a direct democracy, but that's the crucial thing about direct democracy: the voters are able to change how things work so that they work better.

(e): There's little distinction between centralization and decentralization in anarchism. It's still up to the populace to actually enforce things, and if they don't like some new decision made by everyone else, they won't enforce it. It's better to let people opt into and out of things; that ensures that whatever is most popular is probably also the most beneficial for everyone.

3 (a): Police protect the bourgeoisie, and enforce the state's rule. The police need to be afraid of the people, and the people need to be fearless of the police.

See this link for an example in the UK: liveleak.com/view?i=61c_1210804020

Notice that the police are helpless when they face an angry mob who's about one unjustified arrest away from beating the shit out of them. Now, compare that to what happens in New York: glassbeadcollective.blip.tv/file/784711/

Notice that the angry crowd simply lets the police arrest people for nothing. Had that been in the UK, those police would have been beaten, had they been stupid enough to try that at all. The problem is that people in New York are afraid of the police, and not just any people. These are Critical Mass demonstrators. How can political protesters simply let the police walk all over them? Furthermore, how can the police be so fearless of the angry crowd around them? IMO, that's a problem. The police need to be shitting themselves when a mob of angry people starts yelling at them, not continuing with their unjustified arrest.

(b): Republican democracy is a sham. Participating in it makes it seem legitimate, like anarchists actually have a say; they don't. Anarchists have a say when authorities are held accountable by anarchists.

(c): I don't reject it.

(d): I don't agree that those are trivial.

5 (a): I don't think there is a differences, except in the means by which anarchy is achieved. There are big differences between anarchism and Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism. But between anarchists, and communism as it's written in The Communist Manifesto the only difference is in the means to the end.

5 (b): Violence is not necessary, and nonviolent approaches are better IMO. I discussed elsewhere the possibility of creating a political party which would require politicians to sign contracts in which they agree to facilitate and support democracy. Whenever a majority overrules the politician's vote, they must concede to the majority, or get sued and kicked out of office. In order to get votes and funding from this party, they have to sign the contract. Wherever the party has a swing vote, it can potentially get a politician to sign the contract.

My suspicion though is that even the most determined attempts at nonviolent revolution will end up at least a little violent. Police are going to keep acting like they're unaccountable to anyone and above morality until protesters start giving them a reason to respect people.

[Black Sheep]

1-d)So counter-revolution supporters (and propagandisers) will be persecuted or not?Are there various opinions in this?

2-a)Yes but in war you need strategy!A self-organised bunch of rebels spontaneously taking arms to stand against a professional army, without a large scale coordination with allied rebel forces would be crushed like a bug.And remember i m not talking about guerilla warfare.

3-5) remains unanswered :blushing:

Thank you very much for your answers!:)

[nuisance]

Q5:Theory //// i know, it should have been Q4...
a)What are, in your perspective, the differences between anarchy and communism? (the end of the road)
Well firstly not all anarchists are communists. That said the difference primarily between anarchist-communism and communism, is that anarchists require the economic communism to be devoid of hierarchy. Communists don't necesarily agree with the abolition of hierarchy in a communist society.


b)In your perspective, is violence necessary for the revolution?
Are the ruling class going to willingly give up their luxury once they see the error of their ways? That said we can all still hope for a peaceful revolution, but we need to be prepared either way.

[Wake Up]

All my questions on a video on youtube i uploaded.
"Questions for anarchists"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akf9PjVW2MU

Q1:The rejection of the vanguard party and the proletarian state,and the proposition of a federation of workers communes.
a)Isn't that inefficient in a matter of organisation when facing and external burgeoisie threat, like an invasion?
b)How do you prevent internal counter-revolution and formatino of counter-revolutionary ideologies in the populace?
c)Doesn't a lack of state require class awareness and "vanguardism" by the vast majority of the workers,thus postponing the revolution several years ahead? *
d)Since there is no coercion,won't the burgeoisie freely propagandise their ideology?Suppression of that is a restriction to their freedom.
e)How can you form the material conditions on production to a socialist mode of production without a state and central planning? **
f)Federation-How will economy and production be managed (planned) to serve best the communes, since each commune will look after the direct interests of their own people,
how will the majority of the populace be benefited? ***

*---meaning that the majority of the workers would have to be pioneers in the struggle
**---emphasizing on state's ability to plan stuff
***----meaning that since communes are managed by its people,they would vote against something that would benefit another commune, if that burdened theirs.


a) In the immediate short term then some efficiency will be lost. However in the long run better worker conditions, incentives and the increased expertise (the workers are the ones in the know here therefore they are more likely to make the correct decision than some beurocrat)

b) By countering bourgeious propaganda with education on the anarchist ideology. Given a free informed choice between capitalism and anarchism only a moron would choose capitalism...

c) I think your question is something like "How can the idea of anarchism exist without someone telling you about it, therefore creating a vanguard of the pioneers?" Well anarchism is not an ideology constrained by dogma. Yes their will be pioneers, but as these pioneers are committed to the rejection of heirarchy, it would be rather hypocritical of them to promote themselves to a vanguard

d) Once the bourgeois propaganda is exposed as such, then it will be very clear to workers which is the better system. Anarchists wouldn't suppress bourgeois campaigns, but I doubt they would get much support

e) Not sure what you mean here.

f) Communes are unlikely to have all their needed resources available. Therefore they will be forced to trade with other communes. Besides an anarchist commune would be distinctly anti-war and oppression, Anarchist Imperialism is a bit of an oxymoron.



Q2:Rejection of all hierarchy amongs the anarchists
a)No military hierarchy- how can quick decisions be made in case of an external assault? Surely you cannot apply direct democracy here.
b)All anarchist (or anarchistic) movements had leaders.You may argue that those leaders are not "archons" but they do give orders and plan the course of action in various fields.
c)How do you manage production without hierarchy AT ALL in the workplace?
d)In general how do you organise large group of people without a structure upon them?
e)Why do you reject democratic centralism?



a) Temporary 'leaders' would would be elected by the soldiers down to platoon level. This provides the nessecary efficiency that ana army needs but without creating a heirachy. The Durritti column and others during the Spanish civil war proved this method to be highly effective.
ALso most wars so far have been about disagreements between rulers. Anarchism has no rulers, it is up to the people to protect themselves.

b) So they do. But these 'leaders' are fully against the establishment of a heirarchy. Everything they do would be governed by direct democracy preventing a figure head from taking control.

c) Direct democracy. Also most industry runs itself when placed in the hands of the experts (the workers).

d) The people organize themselves and structure themselves when a situation arises. It isn't for me to tell the people what to do.

e) All desicions must be enforced by the people whether centralized or decentralized. So really there's no point in having a central body.




Q3:Struggle
a)What the F**CK is the thing about cops and the anti-police madness?Why the clashes?Why the road fighting? How does this serve the cause?
b)Why do you reject the participation in the parliament,since it is a gr8 means of propaganda.
c)Why rejection of syndicalism? (except from anarchosyndicalists of course)
d)Why the sectarianism?(by lots of anarchist groups)
e)Why do you focus on trivial things such as freedom (fuckin ABSTRACT) and prisons?


a) violent demonstration is not something that defines anarchism. However the police are the most visible aspect of the state so some anarchists reaction to them is understandable. At the moment it does serve little purpose other than to alienate the general public and provide the bourgeois with an incentive to release more propaganda.

b) parliament is a function of the state, so we must reject it in order to be consistent. However anarchist will often support libertarian candidates as they are the best of a bad bunch. I personally spoil my ballot...

c) Because economics isn't the only area of domination. By focusing on this one area (unions and syndicates), the revolution will fail as other areas of domination are not countered properly. I wouldn't say I reject it though, juts not convinced.

d) Anarchism is about freedom. That includes freedom of the mind and the rejection of restraining dogma and ideology. Therefore differences of opinion often manifest itself into different schools of thought.
Having said that I would like to see a more united front, anarchists should describe themselves as anarchists as it's less confusing to the layman that we are trying to convince.

e) Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want. There you go I defined it, it's not at all abstract. Freedom, whether it is economic, movement, speech, food etc etc is the most important thing to any human being. It is not trivial




Q5:Theory //// i know, it should have been Q4...
a)What are, in your perspective, the differences between anarchy and communism? (the end of the road)
b)In your perspective, is violence necessary for the revolution?

a) The reason that communism has not become the worldwide revolution that Marx foresaw is because it only focuses on economic freedom. Marx and Engles failed to realise that domination exists in many other forms -
The domination of woman by man, The domination of movement, The domination of ideology (free speech) etc etc.
Anarchism realizes that economics is just one part of the jigsaw and is therefore the chance of a successful revolution is much higher. While the end result of anarchism and communism is pretty much the same, communism's method of getting their is flawed.

b) Violence will be necessary at some point. I feel that violence at this stage is counter-productive, but once the revoultion is gaining popular support then violence and focoism will probably be needed.
Violence should be prevented but not avoided.

[F9]

Q1:The rejection of the vanguard party and the proletarian state,and the proposition of a federation of workers communes.
a)Isn't that inefficient in a matter of organisation when facing and external burgeoisie threat, like an invasion?
b)How do you prevent internal counter-revolution and formatino of counter-revolutionary ideologies in the populace?
c)Doesn't a lack of state require class awareness and "vanguardism" by the vast majority of the workers,thus postponing the revolution several years ahead? *
d)Since there is no coercion,won't the burgeoisie freely propagandise their ideology?Suppression of that is a restriction to their freedom.
e)How can you form the material conditions on production to a socialist mode of production without a state and central planning? **
f)Federation-How will economy and production be managed (planned) to serve best the communes, since each commune will look after the direct interests of their own people,
how will the majority of the populace be benefited? ***

*---meaning that the majority of the workers would have to be pioneers in the struggle
**---emphasizing on state's ability to plan stuff
***----meaning that since communes are managed by its people,they would vote against something that would benefit another commune, if that burdened theirs.

a)Of course no.why would it be?Do we need a party to protect ourselves?Of course not.Having no "vanguard party" doesnt mean there wont be organization.You confusing again Anarchism as luck of organization which is incorrect.

b) People will know what they fight for and their rights so they wont be affected by counter-revolutionaries tactics and propaganda.

c)i dont see why it would be different having a state or not.Either ways for the revolution to be successful people should be aware of what they fight for.If the proletarians are not aware of what they revolt for then the revolution is going to be "week" and end as a failure.So our first goal is to bring Anarchism awareness to the people!
There arent pioneers,there are either with the revolution,either counter-revolution and either having a stance away of those which finally may benfit us.

d)they can freely say what they want.

e)with common dicisions in the communities we will put our plans down and as a community we will make them.Of course first decision of the commune will be what system we are going to follow(communism,individualism etc).Every commune can take its decision freely.

f)if every commune sees the benefit of its own people eventually all the population of all communes will be benefited.But remember allthough communes are seperated in their dicisions,help in bettwen communes will always be there even with communes with different system.Help will be provided so there ae going to be proper living to all people and proper advance!


Q2:Rejection of all hierarchy amongs the anarchists
a)No military hierarchy- how can quick decisions be made in case of an external assault? Surely you cannot apply direct democracy here.
b)All anarchist (or anarchistic) movements had leaders.You may argue that those leaders are not "archons" but they do give orders and plan the course of action in various fields.
c)How do you manage production without hierarchy AT ALL in the workplace?
d)In general how do you organise large group of people without a structure upon them?
e)Why do you reject democratic centralism?a)Defend ourselves.I dont see where the decision should be taken.People would be informed where the assult is going to be and the defensng measures would be taken.Of course those measures would have some points known from before.
Of course this situation would be able only if the Anarchism wouldnt succed global and capitalists states are still alive in some places or during the revolution.In both situations we would be aware for the danger and we would be properly prepared.

b)thats not Anarchism,in Anarchism there arent leaders or anything simillar.

c)what do you mean?people will still product those things they can,they dont need hierarchy to product.people enjoying their job they will produce enough and even mre of what the commune needs.

d)we dont organize them.we are one organization and every member is equal and decisions are made from all.

e)ok now..we dont advocate democratic centralism because we advocate the right of ALL people to the decisions,no to few


i will answer the other two later because its tiring!:(

Fuserg9:star:

[F9]

Q3:Struggle
a)What the F**CK is the thing about cops and the anti-police madness?Why the clashes?Why the road fighting? How does this serve the cause?
b)Why do you reject the participation in the parliament,since it is a gr8 means of propaganda.
c)Why rejection of syndicalism? (except from anarchosyndicalists of course)
d)Why the sectarianism?(by lots of anarchist groups)
e)Why do you focus on trivial things such as freedom (fuckin ABSTRACT) and prisons?

a)i already answered you this in the greek forum.

b)i remember answering this again but i cant find it so..
We reject participation in anything of what the state and current system has.We would be kind of contribute to the system by participate in its organs.The best way of spreading propaganda is in the roads and at the jobs,not in media etc.

c)i dont really reject it but i thing that it wont lead us to the revolution from the syndicates as syndicalists support.Our aim isnt directly and only associated in the syndicates!

d)why do we focus onl on Anarchism?Because we thing is the correct and the only solution.

e)freedom is the MOST important thing,thats what we are fighting for.Its a very important thing that we dont have this days.
we dont mainly focus on prisons!:confused:



Q5:Theory //// i know, it should have been Q4...
a)What are, in your perspective, the differences between anarchy and communism? (the end of the road)
b)In your perspective, is violence necessary for the revolution?[/QUOTE]

a)In communism there is only communism.In Anarchism there are plenty differential "systems" in the decision of the community.Anarchism is the freedom to choose.

b)of course.Not because we want it but because bourgeois will try to defend what they got with everything they got,and that would lead to violence.

Fuserg9:star:

[JimmyJazz]

Nice guitar track. :thumbup1:

yeah, what is it?

[Knight of Cydonia]

b)All anarchist (or anarchistic) movements had leaders.You may argue that those leaders are not "archons" but they do give orders and plan the course of action in various fields.



b) yeah, but the function of leader here was not in the same meaning with "master", the leader here is to help organise every direct action anarchists had, not to order them what to do.

[Anarch_Mesa]

b)All anarchist (or anarchistic) movements had leaders.You may argue that those leaders are not "archons" but they do give orders and plan the course of action in various fields.

Most Anarchist movements have a symbol more than a leader, and a group of people (sometimes all of the people) decide on the actions through their figure head or "Leader".


Nice guitar track


I second that.

[Black Sheep]

The guitar track is In flames - Acoustic medley

Q1-a) In this question all i got was "the people wil jsut defend themselves"
The thing is, that how do you plan STRATEGY in the battlefield without authority.
i am not talking like. 100 burgeoisie with rifles storm the anarchist communes, but a sizeable variant army with tanks, aircraft, blahh blahh.
Saying "oh, we are just going to defend ourselves" is very naive.

And since there is no coercion or democratic centralism, every worker in the battle could reject the orders (or directions, guidelines,propositions, whatever) given by the worker's military council.

Which could geopardise the outcome of the battle.

That is an example of a case in which i think hierarchy is necessary.
What do you think?

[nuisance]

The guitar track is In flames - Acoustic medley

Q1-a) In this question all i got was "the people wil jsut defend themselves"
The thing is, that how do you plan STRATEGY in the battlefield without authority.
i am not talking like. 100 burgeoisie with rifles storm the anarchist communes, but a sizeable variant army with tanks, aircraft, blahh blahh.
Saying "oh, we are just going to defend ourselves" is very naive.
Well during the revolution, all sort of weaponary would have been expropriated, therefore we'd most likely have more at hand than the bourgeosie in this scenario. Aswell, considering this is during the revolution active militias would be around and would be able to fend of the attackers.


And since there is no coercion or democratic centralism, every worker in the battle could reject the orders (or directions, guidelines,propositions, whatever) given by the worker's military council.

Which could geopardise the outcome of the battle
Well we don't advocate conscription if that's what you're getting at. What makes you think that the fighters would simply disregard instructions given by someone with better military knowledge than themselves whom they elected into that role in the first place?




That is an example of a case in which i think hierarchy is necessary.
What do you think?
I think that forcing people into battle is inhumane and also decreases cohesion in the unit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

eeeeeh.Tucker's fetish for contracts suggest otherwise.

One of the things that Rocker listed as an important aspect of any future anarchist society in Anarcho-Syndicalism was the notion of "free contract".

You could very well argue that what he meant by "contract" (and other anarchists of various theoretical schools who used the term) differed from what Tucker or Proudhon meant by "contract", but "contract" in and of itself isn't a dirty word. And I personally don't think that "the market" is a hideous concept either, though I realize that that puts me in the minority on the Left.

I think that many times "individualist anarchism" gets a bad reputation that it doesn't deserve. Many of them believed in the class struggle to achieve liberation. Read the last section of Spooner's Natural Law. It's very interesting how many of the concepts he brings up (such as surplus being used to fund armies of subjugation, and the divorce of the people from the land) closely resemble what Marx had to say about "primitive accumulation". He even mentions how the state is composed of a domineering class.

[bobroberts]

And since there is no coercion or democratic centralism, every worker in the battle could reject the orders (or directions, guidelines,propositions, whatever) given by the worker's military council.

Which could geopardise the outcome of the battle.

That is an example of a case in which i think hierarchy is necessary.
What do you think?

This could theoretically happen within any army, but I don't think it was ever a problem with any of the few anarchist militias throughout history. People desert and refuse to obey orders all the time, even in modern armies. Generally, if an army views their actions as a legitimate form of defense, these problems are minimal and people will give their all to the fight. If they don't, then they shouldn't be forced to take part in the first place. I think creating a powerful hierarchy above their head to punish them for going against their conscience, or for disobeying an incompetent general or whatever is wrong. Revolution is the ultimate act of dissent, it's a recognition that the few cannot rule the many, that ordinary people are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves, so it's silly to try and force people within a revolutionary army to be mindlessly obedient cogs in a war machine and to eliminate any dissent.